Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple different operators
venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 2EA393A68CD for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FdsbzI27NhPF for
<mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com
[74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99493A6781 for
<mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvd12 with SMTP id 12so551447pvd.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>;
Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=XLQ7zpkWUfFpRSmSvPvMLVRiHmmkiwqwxG7ZUoZuE68=;
b=ZXVVlbg4vgemZIS1zOg832oCwcY1aGIoW7XL/cb9yA/sP5n3InvqvRHZh8syaut6v/
BwnYnRw7xmmVUN+3j4L4Xx08+6tRC5KJumClq9Y/xD79PD6Lt383Qd5oEZ/3G4mFrtk1
IN+bcp0ZsSgSZTm31yJ8HTCRzMWtf4I+/Fz+s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
b=aZqhM7wXlnM5f6kwPruye5hFdWQ24WLUmVOgJFaL9VQtX+OLg8zr91/B+v97TwkFEG
mqYeDwR1l4o2SNPoj5mWsXmv6qJoP8Q0uamHY/0JWta9Br6gPY4Ks65L+dwd8fJ43PHz
1Qz2pRwB+k5ek9vg4gAri78rj8xzOGjHCNlDY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.25.34 with SMTP id c34mr10458714wfj.181.1277913986365;
Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.167.14 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinjtSuXJoJUKFLPULQkOiqmKtqfnWaa5_CFdgK6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik-HZHcVP8ZZR-kj3bmbHKDsTzlPUdlzvnDepPu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinjtSuXJoJUKFLPULQkOiqmKtqfnWaa5_CFdgK6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:36:26 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJtjQdxpaJnn2ye061HN-qzFOd_YD_V9jl_HbH@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple
different operators
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>,
<mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>,
<mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:06:19 -0000
Hi, Can transport guys please reply to the below query? Thanks, Venkat. On 6/30/10, venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Can we establish a LSP/PW between MPLS-TP operators with different > identifiers (ICC and Global_ID)? > > for example, > > Operator1 ----------Operator2----------------Operator3----------------Operator-4 > (ICC) (ICC) (Global_ID) (Global_ID) > > Can single LSP/PW be traversed between Operator1 and Operator-4? > If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between > Operator1 and Operator2 and > another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these > two LSPs/PWs for communication across operators? > > > Thanks, > Venkat. > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:13 PM, venkatesan mahalingam < > venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Please clarify whether the below operations are valid for MPLS-TP >> deployment. >> >> For example, >> *Scenario-1:* >> Operator1 -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3 >> (ICC - IP capable) (ICC- IP capable) (ICC IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established over ICC based operators in an IP and >> Non-IP environments? >> ** >> *Scenario-2:* >> Operator1 >> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3----------------------Operator-4 >> (ICC - IP capable) (ICC- IP capable) (ICC IP >> incapable) (ICC IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between >> Operator1 and Operator2 and >> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with >> these >> two LSPs/PWs? >> >> *Scenario-3:* >> Operator1 >> ---------------------------Operator2--------------------------------Operator3 >> (Global_ID - IP capable) (Global_ID - IP capable) (Global_ID IP >> incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established over Global_ID based operators in an IP >> and Non-IP environments? >> ** >> *Scenario-4:* >> Operator1 >> -----------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3------------------------------Operator-4 >> (Global_ID - IP capable) (Global_ID- IP capable) (Global_ID IP >> incapable) (Global_ID IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between >> Operator1 and Operator2 and >> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with >> these >> two LSPs/PWs? >> >> *Scenario-5:* >> Operator1 >> --------------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3 >> (Global_ID- IP capable) (ICC- IP capable) (Global_ID IP >> capable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an IP >> environments? >> ** >> *Scenario-6:* >> Operator1 >> -----------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3 >> (ICC- IP incapable) (Global- IP incapable) (ICC IP >> incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an Non-IP >> environments? >> >> *Scenario-7:* >> Operator1 >> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4 >> (ICC - IP capable) (ICC- IP capable) (Global_ID IP >> capable) (Global_ID IP capable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between >> Operator1 and Operator2 and >> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with >> these >> two LSPs/PWs? >> >> *Scenario-8:* >> Operator1 >> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4 >> (ICC - IP capable) (ICC- IP capable) (Global_ID IP >> incapable) (Global_ID IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between >> Operator1 and Operator2 and >> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with >> these >> two LSPs/PWs? >> >> *Scenario-9:* >> Operator1 >> -------------------Operator2-----------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4 >> (ICC - IP capable) (Global_ID- IP capable) (ICC IP >> incapable) (Global_ID IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between >> Operator1 and Operator2 and >> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with >> these >> two LSPs/PWs? >> >> *Scenario-9:* >> Operator1 >> -------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4 >> (ICC - IP capable) (Global_ID- IP incapable) (Global_ID IP >> capable) (ICC IP incapable) >> >> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4? >> Is this a valid scenario? >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Venkatesan Mahalingam. >> > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Venkatesan Mahalingam. > -- Best Regards, Venkatesan Mahalingam.
- [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment ove… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment… neil.2.harrison